I'm not sure what this insurance would be meant to cover, and what problem it is meant to solve. Would you plan to legislate strict liability on firearm owners? That is, if someone steals my guns, I am financially liable for whatever they are used for?

I don't think the gang member in Chicago is going to pay for liability insurance before he kills the rival trying to take over his corner.

Gun liability insurance would have to cover use of the gun after theft. However, as a gun owner, there are many measures that can be taken to reduce that risk and the resulting insurance premium (e.g., a locked storage cabinet).

Then the shooter can be liable for the remaining according to normal tort law, not strict liability.

Personally, I'd like to see a personal injury cap so there is no remainder. The shooter can still be liable for remaining economic damages but again he'd be responsible according to normal tort law for that remainder.

Mr. Vulture:
In the United States, the precise rule will be determined by state law, and therefore the answer may vary depending upon where you are. However, I believe the general rule is that you're only liable for damage done by your vehicle if you personally did something negligent. So, if your car is stolen and causes damage, you're not liable; if you give your keys to a drunk guy, you might be.

So... If i get robbed at knifepoint, do i also get liability insurance payment? I mean, why stop with guns? In terms of lethality, knives are used far more often to commit murder than all long guns put together (including semi-auto rifles, now redefined as 'assault weapons').

So if anything, it should be cheaper for me to insure a few AR-15's than for M.S. to insure his kitchen knife collection.

Is there a chance that holding such an insurance policy would create a perverse incentive to engage in gun violence? Maybe I am misunderstanding some things, but if you have health insurance you're more likely to go to the doctor for a less serious ailment; if you have car insurance it's less of a problem if you get in an accident; if you have renters insurance you might not be as diligent about locking the door...Would mandatory, across-the-board gun liability insurance somehow devalue the consequences of owning-- and potentially using-- a gun?

We're discussing this issue. Short answer is that without some change in the way tort law works with respect to gun violence, it will encourage it because it decreases the civil penalties for gun violence without changing the likelihood those penalties will apply. If you apply a different standard of liability, the commenters in said thread (myself included) disagree.

Americans, please explain something to this ignorant European: for what good reason would any sane human being in a Western democracy want to keep an assault weapon at home?? I just can't fathom a reason that is, well, reasonable.

It doesn't really make sense at all, but that is just part of its appeal to gun owners. It is one of America's many mores - a part of American culture that many Americans have come to see as a core characteristic of their culture.

Owning a gun is American. Opposing them is un-American.

That really is the whole argument. This is why it is so hard to oppose, but also why it must inevitably be relegated to the rubbish pile of history.

Lest our European friend get the wrong idea, however, there are many, many, MANY Americans who do not hold this sentiment. And this gun culture varies WIDELY by region and even town by town, city by city. I agree that there are places and individuals who do think that owning a gun is very "American" but it's not necessarily pervasive, and I would hate to perpetuate that stereotype. One problem is that the people who DO buy into the gun culture are very single-minded politically. Gun owners and organizations tend to vote and focus on this issue alone, while people who are against guns or ambivilent toward them tend to be more diverse and have more spread in their political will. Thus, the gun people do get a lot of voice. It's an unfortunate problem of relative weight.

"One problem is that the people who DO buy into the gun culture are very single-minded politically. Gun owners and organizations tend to vote and focus on this issue alone, while people who are against guns or ambivilent toward them tend to be more diverse and have more spread in their political will."

You mean, like liberals who vote only vote for a candidate based if that candidate supports gay marriage, abortion, public funding of medical care, etc, etc?

Or black people who vote overwhelmingly for a presidential candidate only because he is black?

Or Latinos who vote solely based on whether a candidate supports amnesty for illegal immigrants?

muki_mc, to answer your question, for the same reason that people buy sports cars, airplanes, boats and any number of other things.

There is also the issue of what exactly constitutes an "assault weapon". I have a rifle that, according to the state of California, is perfectly legal as-is, but if I were to put a different flash-suppressor on the barrel, which does absolutely nothing to change the function of of the weapon, it would be illegal to own.

I use this rifle to hunt with, it is of sufficient caliber and power to be effective for any game in North America.

I also have in the event that I need it for self defense. I live in a rural area and it took law enforcement over 15 minutes to respond to two calls of shots being fired.

The area isn't crime-ridden (yet), but we are just over two hours from Los Angeles. As the economy has gotten more difficult, gangs and thieves in general have been travelling farther into rural areas because they know there are easier pickings and less law enforcement patrolling the areas.

And, please keep in mind when you see responses such as those from Bugs10, there is a growing divide between the rural and urban areas in the U.S.

The state of California is a perfect example: There are 58 counties in the state, about 8 of them comprise the large urban areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento) and their surrounding areas and have a majority of the population.

The other 50 counties are rural and many are in the mountains and pretty isolated.

Look at the voting records for this state and you will see that the 8 or so urban counties vote almost exclusively (there are a coupe of notable exceptions) Democrat, every election, on every issue.

The other 50 counties, plus or minus a few, vote exclusively Republican, every election, on every issue.

In correlation with that, the 8 urban counties have stricter gun laws, almost no concealed carry permits are issued in those counties (with the notable exception of politicians and celebrities) and the residents of those counties are rabidly anti-gun, like Bugs10.

The other 50 or so counties have less restrictions on gun ownership (as lax as state law permits), they issue more concealed carry permits and their residents are generally pro-gun.

And I will finish by saying that as a general rule, the residents of the 50 or so rural counties are pretty self-reliant, they tend to want to take care of themselves and want minimal government involvement in their daily lives.

The urban counties, on the other hand, tolerate and are used to much more government involvement in their daily lives, they are much less self-reliant and much less inclined to be so.

Please understand and respect that we have many reasons for owning many types of weapons, from knives to muskets to "assault weapons" and that we are in a much different situation from Europe.

Keep in mind that 99% of legal gun owners will never commit a gun crime, and 99% of "assault weapons" will not be used in any crime. Despite all the rhetoric about defending ourselves from tyranny I think most gun owners nowadays are collectors/hunters/target shooters who just don't want their hobby ruined by a few crazy people, and there is nothing wrong with that. However that argument is easy to disregard for people who have no interest in guns or have not grown up around guns like many owners have.

Fair enough. I mean, it still sounds alien to me, this obsession with keeping lethal weapons, and making such a fuss about hording them (for a supposed "hobby"). Especially as there is a clear link between easy access to weapons and their use for violent means (even if by a minority); to argue otherwise is to ignore the facts. So, pardon me for thinking it makes no sense to make a big deal out of defending a hobby that has deadly consequences. But then again I'm not American, so I cannot understand why it is worth it.

Well most gun owners don't have lethal intentions. I'm not going to deny that more access means more crime, but it also means more legal use and more responsible gun owners. People weigh pros and cons when making decisions on things like gun control and when you are part of a culture of safe, legal gun ownership the scales start to tilt more towards the pro-gun side for many people. Those who don't own guns are often undecided or go back and forth. Before this latest incident polls showed most people opposed new gun legislation, but there was a knee-jerk anti-gun reaction after the shooting and that just further polarized both sides.

There are plenty of gun control measures that could gain bipartisan support. Like the article says most gun owners support measures to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but when you have two extreme positions to choose from; minimal control vs potential ban, owners will invariably support the one that favors them.

And their is also a clear link between easy access to automobiles and the violence that they create.

Just this weekend, the news had stories about a hit and run (the guy was hit by two cars in a row), a guy whose car was run off the road by another car and resulted in the death of his two sons and then there were the criminals who ran from the police and hit another vehicle, killing two people in it.

That was just this past weekend and just what the news reported.

The problem is not easy access to weapons, vehicles, or anything else. The problem is irresponsible and criminal behavior on the part of the people using them.

I do apologize, find the connection to owning automobiles sophistry. We are comparing a machine with a specific, non-lethal purpose that can cause accidents, some lethal, when misused. Our societies are filled with such machines. A gun, on the other hand, is a tool whose only purpose is to launch lethal projectiles at other people, as well as animals. There is a direct correlation between violent crime, including periodic insane massacres, and access to weapons. Period. And this is not only in the US. I have lived in several countries where guns were also easily accessible (I was offered AK-47s for $50 in Cambodia in 1990s), and their use in crime, turning it into violent crime is equally prevalent. On the other hand, I will compare Mozambique, where there was a huge post-civil war collection of weapons, to the more violent crime in South Africa, where guns are more readily available.

So, I can't buy the argument that legal access to weapons is comparable to legal access to cars. Guns are made for aggressive use (even if you're just getting a testestorone rush at the shooting range), cars are not. In my country, you can own a hunting rifle, or an air gun. Nothing more, unless under very strict conditions (which almost no one is eligible for). Crime, gang wars, and all that are on the rise because of economic difficulties. Unfortunately, there are also increasing cases of mental instability. But violent crime is rare, and it's not increasing. I am positive, however, that if you made weapons readily available, more people would be shooting each other.

Actually, the roadblock to reasonable legislation is the millions of dollars each election cycle that the NRA and its ilk spend to defeat lawmakers who do otherwise than toe their party line, even going so far as to block the research necessary to have an informed conversation.

In 2011 there were 10.3876 vehicle-related deaths per 100,000 people in America, and in 2012 there were 10.2 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people. I agree that cars vs guns is not necessarily a fair comparison but it is still noteworthy.

And a gun's sole purpose is not death. Obviously they were designed for that purpose and it remains one of the major uses but to say it is the only use is disingenuous. Target shooting and collecting for historical or sentimental value are also widely practiced.

In 2007 there were 12,632 gun murders in America. Clearly much higher than countries with strict control, but when you compare that with the estimated ~350 million total guns and ~50 million gun-owning households (40%-50% of population owning at least one) it doesn't look so outrageous anymore.

I said one of the roadblocks. I agree the NRA isn't helping either but both sides are dominated by extreme positions and that is the main problem. Anyways the NRA is just a lobbying group, no more powerful than any other.

"Though it spent nearly $11 million on the 2012 election, the National Rifle Association saw less than 1 percent of its money go toward its desired result, according to the Sunlight Foundation—a nonpartisan group that uses data to promote government transparency."

I'm not saying those deaths are insignificant but when compared with the number of people who legally and responsibly own guns it is comparatively small. The fundamental divide in our ideologies is what level of control will make that number smaller without infringing too much on those millions of responsible citizens.

I can understand some people not understanding. I have been waiting for hunters to respond to this. I am a hunter. In Texas and other states there is a severe problem with hogs, and other pests. Hogs destroy more land then you can immagine (GOOGLE IT). Prairie dog holes can cause horses and cattle to break their legs when they step in them. It Texas we can hunt wild hogs all year long, and believe me when you want to shoot several at a time in a group you want a semi auto high capacity rifle. I have owned bolt action single shot rifles, pistols, shotguns. The semi auto rifle plays its role in hunting scenerios just as a good shotgun for bird hunting. I prefer a shot gun for home defense, and I carry a small pistol for protection outside the house. Our schools in our district have had a police force inside since Columbine. We also have other problems in Texas ILLEGAL ALIEN DRUG SMUGGLING ARMED GANG MEMBERS. So I'll keep my semi auto rifles thank you, because my Government won't do anything about ILLEGAL DRUG SMUGGLING ARMED GANG MEMBERS. Liberals just want to give them a hug and a hot meal.

Millions of gun enthusiasts in America do not own assault weapons. Assault weapons are rapid automatic (or burst of 3 shot) rifles. The so called assault weapons like the AR-15 or AK-47 lookalikes readily available in the US are semi-automatic: one pull of the trigger for each shot - just as are millions of hunting rifles.

The US definition of assault rifles (sale banned from 1994 to 2004) essentially attempted to legislate against evil looking, military style light rifles. The lower cost ammunition most often used - in my AR-15 for example - is the same full metal jacketed ammunition required under the Hague Convention of 1895 and later Geneva conventions - in order to reduce deaths in wartime. The theory was: killing a soldier takes 1 soldier out of battle. Injuring a soldier may take 2 or 3 out of battle.

If one is to be shot by a rifle, it is definitely preferable to be shot by an AR-15 (designed only for killing?) than a hunting rifle.
In the state where I acquired my AR-15, use of that weapon to hunt big game is prohibited - because of the lack of lethality compared with standard hunting rifles and hunting ammunition.

Canada - considered to have much tighter regulation of guns allows the unrestricted sale of AR-15 and AK-47 look-alikes with the proviso that the ammunition magazine must not hold more than 5 shots. If I recall correctly, my AR-15 magazine holds about 15 shots. The AK-47 look-alike is sold with FOUR magazines each holding 5 shots.

This type of rifle is very rarely used in the commission of a crime in the US, perhaps less than .1% of all crimes.

And the per-capita ownership of rifles (including semi-automatic) and perhaps shotguns - is about the same in the US and Canada.

So far (in 18 years of ownership) my AR-15 has maimed or destroyed only cans at a target range.

The Constitutional issue is major. A cursory reading of the history of the application of the Second Amendment will make clear that it does not insure a right to hunting... it is primary aimed at self defense for individuals or groups against tyranny whether by our own government or foreign attack.

A fascinating detail in the Dred Scott decision finding that black people could not be citizens of the US... in the fine print the court mentioned some reasons that look bizarre by today's standards: if a black person had been found by a court to be a citizen - they would have the rights of: free speech, movement between states, and the right to keep and bear arms. Later court cases in the southern states (1866-1890) struck down laws that prohibited black people from buying and possessing firearms for personal defense. In some ghettos there were organized black self-defense organizations.

The counter argument to comparing cars is in the number of miles driven totalled up. Cars and miles driven steadily increase, yet the death rate per mile driven has fallen. Comparitively, have the number of rounds risen? Do people now shoot their gun for 2 hours a day traveling to and from work or taking the kids to soccer?

Yet the main reason we have gang members smuggling drugs over the border, is drug prohibition. The gangs are nothing more than businessmen loosed of any social responsibility. The US went through this before with booze, why we insisted on reviving a broken policy is a sad indictment of our collective stupidity.

You can't fathom a reason because you're actually naive enough to believe that you will always have a government that wants the best for you and isn't tyrannical. Yes, at the moment we have a good government, but do you REALLY think that it will always be that way? I'm sure the Cambodians didn't think that they would one day have a government that would round up the millions of people that were educated and execute them. I believe the situation in Syria right now (opressive government killing it's citizens) would be a lot different if every family had an assualt rifle and some ammunition.

The reasonable reason behind having the type of guns you speak of is so that you are able to fight tyrrany when it one day decends upon you. That is the reason for the second ammendment - a well armed militia to ensure a free state.

I hope it never happens. I really, truly hope that people owning these guns is enough of a deterrent. But I want to be prepared and armed if I ever do need to fight against an evil state opressing it's citizens.

But does more of the population own guns? And lets be clear here miles driven in cars has gone up dramatically as people commuted further and further, and drive more and more just to do things like shop, play sports, etc.

In any case many millions of miles are driven, and people spend hours driving every day. Even ardent gun enthusists can't match that.

Yet we have more than a few examples of nations with stricter gun control. Do they have gangs running guns across the border so kiddies can snort bullets at their raves? I don't think so.

Misplaced equivalences.

They can't event keep drugs out of prisons, but we persist in maintaining laws that guarantee lawlessness and enduring gang violence. Cops get all sorts of toys, prison guards an expanded population to guard, drug lords rivers of money.

Like I said, it's not really a fair comparison. Gun deaths are mostly intentional and car deaths are mostly due to negligence so the numbers are asymmetric.

But to answer your question, the number of guns and gun owners has been increasing over the past few decades while crime rates have been steadily decreasing. At the very least that shows there are plenty of options other than gun control that can have a large impact on crime.

As for the prohibition issue, the reason drug and alcohol bans never worked is because they are very easy to get, and already a part of our culture. Most countries with gun bans never had a strong gun culture to begin with so prohibition is not hard for them to maintain. America has a culture that has historically welcomed gun ownership and when there are almost as many guns in this country as there are people, a thriving black market would be inevitable.

There is a component of the gun community which favors magazines (periodicals) and web sites featuring scantily-clad women fondling firearms suggestively, and Rambo-esque characters handling large-caliber weapons, and a rather perfunctory search on something like "gun aficionado" will turn up examples. These sites are not the result of my 'cultural antipathy' but rather a conversation that the gun owning community has among itself. What would be unworthy of the Economist is to ignore that in answer to the question asked, "Why does anyone need assault weapons?", it must be pointed out that there is a sexualized component of gun ownership in some cases. As uncomfortable as it may be, to deny the existence of such sites and attitudes, and to dismiss those who point out their existence, is to engage in an incomplete and false narrative. Sex and gun fetishism is not the only force in gun ownership, but it is demonstrably present in the world.

That's ridiculous. Would you say that a magazine with a scantily-clad woman lying on the hood of a car has anything to do with some kind of car fetishism? Sex sells. It's the same advertising technique used by any other company that wants to boost sales.

I think you're just trying too hard to defend a post that wasn't very well thought-out.

"I do apologize, find the connection to owning automobiles sophistry. We are comparing a machine with a specific, non-lethal purpose that can cause accidents, some lethal, when misused."

The whole issue with guns is that they kill people and the number of people killed is being used as a moral justification to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners, most of whom have never and will never commit a violent crime.

So, what you and every other gun control advocate are saying is that you are moral hypocrites, i.e., one machine that causes a large number of deaths must banned because you see no use for it.

However, another machine that causes just as many or more deaths should not be banned because you find it useful.

The argument then moves to the circumstances of use of the machines that cause the deaths.

Guns are designed to kill people and a person has to perform certain, deliberate actions in order to cause a gun to fire.

Guns are not carried by most people on a day to day basis, so the chances that a gun will be negligently discharged on a day to day basis are pretty low.

As a result, the vast majority of deaths caused by guns are the result of deliberate actions on the part the people who have the guns.

Automobiles, on the other hand, are not designed to kill people and newer vehicles are loaded with safety features to protect people, yet they still kill as many or more people than guns do every year.

Moreover, people use automobiles on a daily basis, so the chances that automobiles will be negligently operated are extraordinarily high.

I am sure that everyone here sees plenty of negligent automobile operators on the roads every day and we all know that more and more laws have been passed in an attempt to reduce negligent operation.

Yet, in California, for example, talking on the phone and texting while driving are both illegal, yet both have increased since laws banning them were passed.

So, in this case, motor vehicle operators are deliberately engaging in a dangerous act in a machine that has much more kinetic energy than any "assault rifle".

So, back to the whole moral argument for banning or severely restricting guns: If it morally justifiable to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens for the sole purpose of reducing the number of deaths caused by guns, then there is even more imperative that automobiles also be banned or severely restricted in order to reduce the number of deaths caused by them, because the chances of them being negligently operated is so much higher.

I think that your 99% comment might be overly generalizing a bit. I happen to think that they are remarkably ugly but are fantastic performers in competition shooting.

Aside from that a quick point of clarification almost all of the civilian variety of bushmasters and other similar rifles are still chambered in the NATO 5.56 round.

This is done because, with the exception of chamber pressure and interior case wall thickness, the .223 and the 5.56 are almost identical making it safe to fire either .223 or 5.56 in a rifle chambered for 5.56 but not the other way around. The 5.56 was developed with slightly higher chamber pressures to improve reliability function in full-auto military firearms. In terms of ballistic performance the two rounds are strikingly similar...

"But to answer your question, the number of guns and gun owners has been increasing over the past few decades while crime rates have been steadily decreasing. At the very least that shows there are plenty of options other than gun control that can have a large impact on crime."

There was a recent thread on this in TE, and the mavens that study these sorts of things can find no clear reason why crime rates have fallen. For the most part removal of lead from the environment and an aging population are two factors that are kind of left over from the situation.

That said, most EU countries have much the same demographics going on and all have stricter gun laws and much lower homicide by gun.

---

Please note that I find the assumption of a complete ban on arms a bit of a stretch and will also note that machine guns are also banned yet we don't have a thriving market in them, or shoulder rocket launchers for that matter.

Crime decreased as gun ownership increased. I don't claim that the increase in gun owners was the sole driving force behind the crime reduction, but I do think it was a factor. It is hard to ignore the correlation.

If we are going to debate the effect of guns on crime rates we have to look at violent crime in general, not just gun crime. The UK has low gun ownership, and an intentional homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000 people. The country with the second most guns per capita after the U.S. is Serbia, which also has a murder rate of 1.2. Fourth most guns per capita (skipping Yemen) is Switzerland with a rate of 0.7. Keep in mind a sizable portion of the Swiss population is required to keep a fully automatic military service rifle at their homes. Also in the top 10 gun owners are Saudi Arabia and Sweden, both with homicide rates of 1.0, and Norway with a rate of 0.6. In the U.S. we have twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland yet seven times as many homicides. The relationship between gun ownership and crime is not so black and white.

I would say gun control targets the symptom instead of the cause, but it really doesn't even do that. The vast majority of gun crime in America involves pistols, yet most gun control debate in America targets the weapons used least in crimes because they look scary and get a lot of attention in the news. If gun control proponents focused more on something moderate and effective than an assault weapon ban they might actually be able to get something done. I think I mentioned in earlier posts that I would support reasonable control but I would never support any ban.

By the way, machineguns and rocket launchers are not actually banned. Fully automatic guns, explosives, and silencers are all available, but heavily regulated.

"The relationship between gun ownership and crime is not so black and white."

I agree. The current debate however is driven by a specific issue, that of the high incidence of mass/serial murder/suicide in this country. This is a distinct problem from general (gun) homicide rates, of which gun ownership is only an element.

The current debate focuses on "assault weapons" and is driven by emotional reaction to events like the recent shooting. Then to back up the argument high gun crime statistics are cited, despite being mostly gang related and involving different types of firearms. Frankly using shotguns and pistols is just as effective as using a semi-automatic rifle, and especially if your target is defenseless kindergartners you could do the same damage with a heavy rock. The problem is that after these massacres there is too much hysteria for a rational debate, but when things are more calm nobody seems to care anymore.

Also, the deadliest school massacre in America was a bombing in the 1920s, and the deadliest shooting spree happened in Norway (Anders Breivik).

As noted elsewhere Australia restricted guns after a mass killing in their own nation, and hasn't had an incidence since. Not a guarantee, but mass killings are usually internationally reported, and we seem to have a consistent problem with them.

Breivik, and McVeih are cut from similar cloth. Lanza and Seung-Hui Cho from a slightly different one. I'd throw them in the same bucket as Ronald DeFeo, Jr., individuals the kids around them would vote as "mostly like to become an axe murderer".

" The problem is that after these massacres there is too much hysteria for a rational debate, but when things are more calm nobody seems to care anymore."

Sigh, I know, and it's probably not something one wants to dwell on in the new year.

If you look at our demographics, income disparity, crime, and lack of social safety nets, public healthcare, childcare, mental healthcare, day care, and all of the other services taken for granted in "Western Democracies" you'd realize the US is becoming more like Mexico and less like Switzerland every day. Why would someone want an assault weapon in their home? Because the criminals have assault weapons and the police are an hour away. Enough said.

Owning a firearm is a middle class value. The typical handgun owner is a white suburbanite who isn't planning on holding up a liquor store any time soon. These nonsense policy ideas are a waste of time.

If you want to talk about an idea that might conceivably be passed in the next century like better background checks or large magazine bans then fine. This is ridiculous. Poland is more likely to legalize late term abortion than the US is to ban hand guns or legislate firearms liability insurance which no self-respecting man would pay.

Regardless of what your personal opinion is of the second amendment or the right to bear arms, it's not going anywhere. These massacres are terrible, but the vast majority of murders in the US are inner city drug-related gang murders that nobody cares about. This is the last Western Country that still executes criminals, nobody cares whether or not they decide to kill each other first.

"Regardless of what your personal opinion is of the second amendment or the right to bear arms, it's not going anywhere."

If most (2/3+ majority) Americans support very strict gun laws, then they should amend or even repeal the 2nd Amendment. Until that happens, I, as a person who would support changing the 2nd Amendment to allow for stricter gun controls, am opposed to any laws designed to in practice circumvent the US Constitution.

The US Constitution was designed to protect certain rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc.) that was deemed too important to be overturned by a simple majority vote. The moment Americans lose track of this fact is the moment Americans put some of their most fundamental rights at risk.

"The typical handgun owner is a white suburbanite who isn't planning on holding up a liquor store any time soon."
I don't have any idea if this statistic is correct or not, so just assuming that it is, why then do these middle class white suburbanites want guns? If they don't plan on causing any violence, and they purposely live in a lower crime area, why have one in the first place? All having a gun does in a situation like that is increase the risk of violence occurring in an area where these people choose to live because the risk of violence is low. It doesn't make sense.
I would never want a gun, but I can see a law-abiding citizen just trying to get by in very risky community wanting a gun for protection. I can see someone in rural Montana keeping a rifle on hand (even if they don't hunt) in case a brown bear wonders into the yard. What I don't understand is someone who pays a premium to live in a well-populated area with houses side-by-side and a trained police force--paid for with tax dollars to protect you-- bringing a gun into that situation. It just seems too counter intuitive. Here's what I think happens when too many people start bringing guns into otherwise safe neighborhoods-- Neighbor X doesn't know if Neighbor Y has a gun, so he thinks he should get one just in case. Neighbor Z hears that Y got a gun so she gets one too. Pretty soon everyone in town is playing chicken. A knows B has a gun, so when he goes to confront him about the dog poop on his yard, he packs his own, just in case. At some point an argument that might have escalated to a fist fight leads to someone getting killed. And even if that never happens, the risk of it happening has gone up, and wa-la, you've turned a relatively safe area into a less safe area.

As much as Americans like to moan about their government, it usually does exactly what they ask of it. America could no sooner ban guns than the Russians could stop drinking vodka or the British could get bored with football.

That doesn't mean guns are here to stay forever, only that they will stay as long as they form part of Americans' cultural identity - its mores (read up on your Tocqueville. That dude was smart!).

They can be changed, indeed, they are always changing. The best current example of changing mores is the acceptance of homosexuality.

Mores can only be changed when people decide to change them. They don't do it because of any law, or because they hear a good argument. A culture must have a change of heart, one person at a time.

Actually, the typical gun owner is old, white, male and rural (see Nate silver's analysis). Not only that but gun ownership is reducing, despite increase gun numbers, which means more guns in fewer hands. The overall wish to own guns has reduced as more of the population has moved to the cities. The rural types will be unlikely to reduce their wish for guns, particularly as those populations become more sparse, with fewer resources, they will feel more and more self reliant. However, the increased number of city dwelling people with strong police forces and increased violent crime will push harder for strict gun control laws. Eventually America will go the way of Europe, I just don't know when, The US is still a very large country with significant rural populations, but those populations, demographically, match conservative voters and just as conservatives are seeing their traditional voters drop in number, so pro-gun demographics will see theirs drop. Of course businesses always find new marketing areas, so it is possible we will just find a whole new group of gun owners in the same way that republicans will modify their policies to attract a whole new subset of voters. I find it less likely where the gun business is though, since conservative values are a spectrum and gun ownership is a single issue, but I wouldn't want to bet against a high value industry finding a new market

"Here's what I think happens when too many people start bringing guns into otherwise safe neighborhoods..."

That argument is childish, idiotic and well-proven to be wrong.

A knows B has a gun and A doesn't care that B has a gun unless and until B threatens A with said gun.

If the situation was as you describe it, people would be routinely shooting each other.

The reality is that the vast majority of shootings are either self-inflicted or used for a criminal act.

"And even if that never happens, the risk of it happening has gone up, and wa-la, you've turned a relatively safe area into a less safe area."

And guess what? "A" could get a baseball bat, a piece of rebar, a machete, an axe or any number of other edged or blunt weapons that are in the average garage and house and beat, stab or hack B to death.

So, I guess that, wa-la, every neighborhood in America, even Amish neighborhoods, are less-safe areas.

Yeh, but unfortunately the question of a cure or problem identification is itself a matter of knee jerk on all sides. Some would lash out and label any mentally abnormal folk as a danger, regardless of the reality. The NRA itself has been culpible in thwarting any research. From the left banning this or that is seen as a magic bullet.

What is rather telling though, is in the case of Virginia Tech, and Newton, and earlier events like Amityville people widely knew the perp was likely to amok. Such criteria don't cover occurance of mass or serial killings but it would be wrong to characterize them all as the same thing in the first place.

But isn't the missing element here intercession of more rational heads, like the cops or neighbors coming in, leaning on the antagonists and telling them to knock it off or both of them will get to sit in jail overnight?

The problem isn't so much two hot heads, it's the lack of response from the surrounding community to squelch the problem before it gets out of control.

I think you misunderstood my comment - Bugs10 was saying that "A" goes out and buys a gun because he thinks "B" has one and so is scared of "B".

My point is that's not why most people go buy a gun and that if his assertion "wa-la, you've turned a relatively safe area into a less safe area" was true, then the average Joe in suburbia would be beating, stabbing and hacking his neighbor to death on a daily basis.

The reality is that it doesn't happen that way, cooler heads do typically prevail before it gets out of control.

"Yeh, but unfortunately the question of a cure or problem identification is itself a matter of knee jerk on all sides. Some would lash out and label any mentally abnormal folk as a danger, regardless of the reality."

People with mental abnormalities can be a danger, but it's not one abnormality that typically makes them a danger, it's a combination of problems.

The problem in this country is that figuring that out means thinking and learning, which is hard.

Why do that when you can order a pizza, crack a cold one, watch the game and let the cops and doctors worry about the crazy people?

As a result, when these issues become a problem for society, most people don't know and don't care and just go along with whatever some talking head says on a news show.

The vast majority of those talking heads, whether they're on Fox News or MSNBC, have an agenda that they are pushing and will blatantly twist the truth or ignore key facts to push that agenda.

So, we have a long chain of willing ignorance in this country that contributes to this and many other problems.

Children in high crime areas are known to purchase guns, and the above dynamic does show up. When there is an expectation that the other gun owners have power or can do violence over oneself, this is the logical response. It's basically the arms race between nations, tribal conflict etc. When no external social body is there to deter potential threats, people take direct measures.

If you are from a better off neighborhood in all likelihood you don't see a neighbor's gun purchase as a potential threat.

"So, we have a long chain of willing ignorance in this country that contributes to this and many other problems."

Totally with you there!

I'm fond of Jared Diamond's reply to the question of what single criteria most identifies whether societies survive crises is. His reply was that if the upper classes feel the consequences of their decisions, things usually work out. If not, it's not good news.

Yup, no one cares about saving lives caused by inner city gangs killing people, despite the fact that many of those people are innocent, because people involved with that definitely don't count as "real people" or are worth any of our enlightened time worrying about.

I was going to attack the rest of the points in your comment, because out of all of the ones I've read, it angers me the most with its casually self-righteousness and absurd higher-ground attitude.
However, there are no other points in it.
You say "Americans don't want strict gun laws". That is changing, and that is what we are trying to change.
You say "owning a firearm is a middle class value", according to who, you, the offended gun owner?

Sorry but your sense of "self respecting and manly" gun ownership isn't really worth the deaths of literally tens of thousands of people every year. Even if those people are in a gang, sell drugs, purchase drugs, live in a poor area of a city, or are black, their lives are worth saving through gun regulation as well.

Not sure why I'm even responding to an inflammatory comment by some jerk on the internet, oh well.

Scooter...I have to disagree with you on one thing. All that really needs to happen is for one or two more liberal judges be appointed to the Supreme Court. Once that happens the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment changes drastically along with "citizens" rights to own a firearm. This unfortunately can be applied to all of our fundamental rights...

I don't know much about the Supreme Court justices, but hopefully the American people will reject more government interference of their person freedoms and vote politicians who wouldn't nominate or confirm these types of justices.

Actually it's only one ten thousand that are murdered with guns every year not, "literally tens of
Thousands".

You were responding to me, but the casual self-righteousness that you were referring to could have been directed at the majority of Americans who think highly of the NRA, support the death penalty, etc. etc..

Don't get mad at me. Your rhetoric only serves to make you look like an out of touch east coast liberal to the gun owning crowd you need to convince. And whether you like it or not people
Don't actually care when gang-bangers kill each other, this is a shame, but it is still
true.

Unfortunately you are right, hopefully not dead right. However, I think the primary reason that guns are so popular and gun control laws not is the vicious (or virtuous if you are so inclined) circle whereby if everyone else has a gun, then I want one too. As this circle fulfills itself, everyone who can afford a gun will have one with very predictable consequences.

I am visiting the U.S. for the PGA tour next year, hope I don't get shot on the 15th hole of Oak Hills.

I'm surprised that the Economist would publish a piece with such an obvious fallacy. Insurance covers liability for negligence but cannot cover civil liability for intentional acts, viz, "9,000 murders which are wrongful death claims." Also, homeowners' policies of insurance likely already cover civil liability for acts of negligence associated with a firearm (i.e. injuries due to an accidental discharge), so the purpose of this additional liability insurance requirement is apparent - to penalize firearms ownership.

It's also highly suspect that even if such a legal requirement were passed, those likely to have committed one of the aforementioned 9,000 murders would have complied with the insurance mandate.

Why assume that insurance of this type will follow the same standards as car insurance? There are many types of pooled insurance with strict liability rather than liability only for accdients. Vaccines are one of them; there's a pool of money out there for people whose children have contracted diseases from vaccines to be compensated that doesn't require the claimants to prove negligence or malfeasance. Nuclear power has another strict liability insurance pool. I don't see why gun manufacturers, gun retailers, or gun owners can't set one up if legally required to.
In case it isn't clear, these insurers can be private bodies (like with nuclear power) or government based (like with the vaccine fund).

It is contrary to public policy to offer policies of insurance to cover liability for intentional torts. Therefore, such policies would likely be void ab initio for illegality. For example, even if an insurer would offer a policy of insurance to cover civil liability for battery, such insurance is void as against public policy because we don't want people running around punching each other having been insulated from civil liability for such acts - that is to say that such policies would actually encourage the commission of the very bad acts themselves.

It would be void without a law enabling it. We aren't talking about voluntary insurance. A mandate would obviously enable such insurance. And it can even enable insurers to go after the insured for intentional torts. Granted that would cut premiums making this form of gun control less effective as gun control.
.
It's not without precedent. Health insurance covers you even if you intentionally injure yourself.

Hold on now. I'm not a lawyer but what you say goes against my current understanding of the situation. If you hold that any gun owner has strict liability, that completely negates any classification of intentional or negligent torts, doesn't it?

In your running around and punching people example, in a strict liability situation for battery you would be able to claim damages from someone for brushing you on the street if you claimed to feel threatened - intent doesn't matter. I could sue a random person on a crowded New York subway for shoving to get into a car, and all I'd have to prove to a judge was that I was touched and claim I felt threatened.

I'd argue that for any type of gun crime, assigning strict liability to, say, civil assault with a deadly weapon will result in more disincentive to commit assault, rather than less, even if insurance is involved, because there is no longer a need for mens rea to prove civil liability. The incentives come into play only after the liability insurance kicks in; that is, someone who has already assaulted someone has little to no incentive to not assault another person because his insurance covers additional civil offenses in the same claim (the criminal ones, however, are another matter).

If at all your contention that it would encourage additional violence is a feature of the way deductibles affect incentives rather than the presence of insurance at all, if we assume that strict liability would apply. If we were to mandate strict liability and then make the insurance a copay system with a cost increasing based on the total claim (say some function that diverges as the claim amount goes to infinity, like log N), the incentives would change for the better.

Alec Leamas, I’m not a lawyer or insurance expert, but in your example of battery insurance you wrote that “such policies would actually encourage the commission of the very bad acts themselves.” This reminds me of the argument in the 1960’s & 70’s against seat belts that claimed it would encourage drivers to go faster, take more risks, and actually cause MORE deaths. Fortunately, that has not been the case. Anyone who’s had a speeding ticket and seen their automobile insurance rates spike up can attest that sometimes there’s nothing like getting hit in the pocketbook to make you mend your ways.

As others have pointed out, gun insurance will be useless against criminals. But as I understand this article it’s aimed at lawful gun owners. No one would buy gun insurance and then start behaving more recklessly with their firearms. If anything, I would expect it to encourage more responsible gun ownership. Thank You.

Again, not sure how that's necessarily the case. Strict liability with insurance would decrease the cost of a civil infraction but make such civil infractions incredibly easy to prove. It would also greatly increase the cost of gun ownership itself if you commit such civil violations. That's a generally unclear effect.
.
Also worth noting that this would come with no concurrent change in the criminal law. What's the bigger disincentive to a crime like aggravated assault, the financial compensation to the victim or getting locked up for a couple of months?

Where a legislature passes a law, courts in states I'm aware of (and I've not done a 50-state survey) would be quite unlikely to void compliance with the law as contrary to public policy. One of the main sources of courts' knowledge as to what constitutes "public policy" is legislative action.

Then if personal liability for intentional shootings still applies, to what end insurance? Only the accidental deaths or wounds? That's an important issue for public health, I'll grant, but it doesn't address the issue that M.S. was speaking to. I'd grant insurers the right to set a very high deductible for intentional shootings, but not eliminate the coverage entirely.

I'm saying that the policies of insurance offered as a contract by private insurers would be void as against public policy if it purported to insure against intentional torts. If the government did mandate "gun insurance" to cover intentional torts, I doubt any insurer would offer the insurance in the first place, and as a result a Second Amendment challenge would be efficacious if the result would be to deny the "keeping" of arms. The only other possibilities are to force insurance companies to cover intentional torts, which would probably itself be subject to legal challenge, or to make the government the insurer with the obvious problems that this entails.

I'm not sure what you mean by imposing "strict liability." Strict Liability does not and cannot abrogate due process, so the facts and issues will be litigated - strict liability does not mean that the insurance company has to write a check as soon as someone yells "strict liability."

In the case of A intentionally and without justification shooting B, you don't need "strict liability" because the liability is clear if the act is proven to have occurred and as an intentional act the fault is one with the intent. If you forced an insurer to defend and indemnify A, it should occur to you that the insurer will use its resources first to defend A - i.e. hiring lawyers to defend A in the civil suit so that they don't have to indemnify A against the loss (which is to say, pay B or B's family). In further practical effect, this might mean tendering a criminal defense of A because the effect of a criminal conviction can be "collateral estoppel," which would mean that liability would be preclusively established in the civil action in the case of a conviction. N.B. That your likely shooter would then receive more resources to defend himself in the criminal and civil cases than he would have had without the insurance mandate.

Agreed on all counts, but I'm not sure that you quite understand what I meant. Imposition of strict liability on any gun crime implies that the litigation need not consider the intent of the shooter, presenting a much lower bar for collection of damages. Certainly it is in the insurance company will choose to provide resources for the defense but I don't think there's much that can be defended against when the only facts to be established are whether a gun was fired and whether the bullet hit.

I was thinking closer to $10,000-$20,000 if you're using a deductible or a continually determined copay like log_1.5 N. Then again, likely nothing will deter A from intentionally shooting B in a fit of rage or passion. The point of the insurance, as RR articulated above, is to get the gun owner and gun owners in general to compensate the victims relatively quickly, regardless of the gun owner's overall financial situation, rather than having society as a whole bear those costs.

It seems to be missing from the discussion that the very costs that the gun nuts now say is too expensive for them to bear through insurance, is that those costs are already being borne by the victims of gun violence, their medical insurers, medicare and medicaid, the public cost of policing and investigating gun violence, and so on.

The second amendment may enshrine the right to bear arms.

It does not enshrine the right to expect the costs of that behaviour to be sloughed involuntarily onto others.

And it does not "slough off". If you are an innocent victim of gun violence, you have recovery in civil court. The public cost of policing could just as easily if not more so be said about cars. Virtually all criminal actions involve the use of a car. More investigations are made I would expect of domestic violence than are made of gun violence. Of course, some of the problem is that people who commit firearms crimes are by definition not obeying the law. I would think it unlikely for them to obey any law requiring insurance either.

Despite being a liberal I have strong libertarian sensibilities about gun control. I would oppose an assault weapons ban in part for the same reasons I oppose airport security put up in name of preventing terrorism: it'd be costly, ineffectual (in terms of restricting deadly weapons - just give up the pistol grip!) and pretty much have no effect on gun crime (since it's mostly committed with handguns).

That being said I have precisely zero problems with mandatory insurance. If there's one thing that reading a lot of libertarian philosophy has taught me, it's that you should take on the total cost of what you own, including your fair share of negative aggregate externalities. Firearms insurance seems a no brainer increase in economic efficiency. In fact, for those who own hunting rifles, shotguns, and even "assault weapons," insurance rates will be very low compared to those for handguns because of the relatively low propensity to commit crime.

Heck, couple it with registration and annual state inspections like those required for cars in NYC and you'll probably catch the criminals who launder their guns to others.

I oppose ineffectively gun control too but I don't think some of the modestly effective gun controls would be all that expensive. TSA involves significant costs. Banning certain classes of arms can cost almost nothing. The arms will be seized if found in the regular course of law enforcement but there doesn't need to be a new agency devoted to it.

I agree with the rest of your comment except possibly with the annual inspections. The NYC car inspection is ineffective and costly. Unless, there's a better way, I'd oppose it for guns for the same reasons you said you oppose an assault weapons ban.

Banning certain classes of weapons is likely to be ineffective at reducing crime from those sources unless a buyback program is initiated, which does have very high costs.

My annual inspections proposal perhaps doesn't make sense for NY cars, maybe, but I was hoping to find some good and non-intrusive way to check for (a) illegal modifications of semi-automatic firearms to automatic firearms and (b) whether or not the registered owner is still in possession of the firearm.

Click on the NRA website and look up the terms in the "Excess Personal Liability and Self-Defence" coverage. They answer many of your Qs.

In terms of Strict Liability, the idea leaped to my mind as well as I was reading MS's article. The obstacle there, I think, is the insurance premium would be prohibitive. As it is, insurance companies are loathe to cover strict liability activities of any kind, for example, ownership of a dangerous pet, storage of explosives. If a claim for damages alleges negligence, that is a different matter. You will see strict liability in the Exclusions. Btw, you do know that speeding is a strict liability crime for which the element of mens rea needs not be established. Interesting, if firearms ownership can be held to be a strict liability activity, then any crime resulting from their use would also be a strict liability crime, meaning legal insanity will not be available to exculpate the mens rea element in the crime. Very interesting result.

Once again, gun owners are already liable for any damage that they cause with their weapon, to include liability for injuring or killing the person who you were defending yourself against.

Responsible, law abiding gun owners will be the ones who would end up paying the insurance while those who commit the vast majority of crimes that involve the use of a firearm will never pay a cent.

So, law-abiding gun owners will be forced to insure against the risk of an event that they will most likely never be held liable for.

In addition, I can pretty much guarantee, based on the current idiotic practice of awarding damages to criminals who were injured in the course of committing their criminal act, that requiring gun-owners to have specific liability insurance would encourage even more civil suits by criminals or their families.

As it stands, they can only go after homeowners with insurance. Requiring insurance like this would open a veritable gold mine to criminals, their families and their lawyers.

"Once again, gun owners are already liable for any damage that they cause with their weapon, to include liability for injuring or killing the person who you were defending yourself against."

OK, so why don't you want insurance against that liability?

"Responsible, law abiding gun owners will be the ones who would end up paying the insurance while those who commit the vast majority of crimes that involve the use of a firearm will never pay a cent."

And if that's the case then insurance rates will be low. If crimes are committed with legally bought firearms then the rates will be higher.

"So, law-abiding gun owners will be forced to insure against the risk of an event that they will most likely never be held liable for."

Again, so rates will be low unless legally bought guns are used to commit crimes. Additionally having firearms insurance will probably contribute to reducing trafficking in illegal firearms if there is some sort of inspection regime that comes along with it.

"In addition, I can pretty much guarantee, based on the current idiotic practice of awarding damages to criminals who were injured in the course of committing their criminal act, that requiring gun-owners to have specific liability insurance would encourage even more civil suits by criminals or their families."

Except in this case because there's no need for a suit... file the claim and let the insurance handle it. Car insurance companies will routinely adjust your insurance rate based on considerations that don't enter into civil liability. If you injure someone in the course of defending your home your insurance is most likely not going to change; if you fire shots in anger then it will.

"As it stands, they can only go after homeowners with insurance. Requiring insurance like this would open a veritable gold mine to criminals, their families and their lawyers."

But someone still has to pay that cost. If an uninsured injured man must be treated (even if he is a criminal) and the firearm owner defending his or her home doesn't currently have insurance, then society as a whole has to bear that cost. Doesn't it make sense to you that gun owners should bear that cost they impose on society? And again, doesn't it make sense that you want to have an insurance pool for all people with firearms for home defense such that the home invader's chance decision doesn't influence who has to pay?

Frankly your arguments are more in favor of insurance than against it.

"But someone still has to pay that cost. If an uninsured injured man must be treated (even if he is a criminal) and the firearm owner defending his or her home doesn't currently have insurance, then society as a whole has to bear that cost. Doesn't it make sense to you that gun owners should bear that cost they impose on society?"

So exactly when does the criminal become liable for bearing the costs of getting shot doing something that he should not have been doing?

"Those most at risk to commit a gun crime would be known to the actuaries doing the research for insurers...

Those most at risk for committing gun crimes are by definition criminals. Laws precluding them from owning firearms have been completely useless and I seriously doubt they'll be buying insurance to cover liabilities from illegal activities.

You're committing a pretty huge temporal fallacy there. Those committing gun crimes are not necessarily criminals until after they've committed the crime. Laws precluding people who are already criminals from owning firearms have been ineffective, but that's a separate issue. Insurance is to cover legitimate gun owners from something that, god forbid, might happen with their firearms. The proper incident to think is Dick Cheney filing a claim, not the gangbanger from South LA calling Geico.

No, but it's a liability claim in the same way that a minor no-fault fender-bender is. Monetary damages would have applied.

My point is that it isn't only crime that would be covered, though that would often be the case. The comparison with auto insurance of course ends pretty quickly; auto insurance doesn't cover intentional damages, only accidental.

This being the United States, I could foresee a perverted consequence of mandatory gun insurance:

Gun insurers would encourage (indirectly through their premiums) gun-owning home defenders to 'shoot to kill' as to forestall the risk of spurious litigation by the criminals who invaded their home and got subsequently shot. :P

In most countries that restrict gun ownership (i.e. the rest of the western world), there are strict rules on storage of weapons and ammo. In Australia, you have gun racks that would not look out of place as a bank vault; I do not believe your normal doped, or even focussed, criminal is going to steal any guns from these 'cupboards' .
It just takes a little will power, which is clearly absent in the US to address various issues.

Never mind pointing out the obvious - and Mr Roubini, for one, knows perfectly well the difference between uncertainty (uninsurable, being unquantifiable) and risk (actuarial ergo quantifiable); please explain the hysterical position of your publication in not acknowledging the true insurable risks.
Is is really news to you (and to Mr Roubini) that a child in the US is 100 times more likely to die in a house with a swimming pool than in a house with a gun?
I'll believe anyone advocating for gun control is rational and numerate if he also supports banning swimming pools, and not otherwise.

It wouldn't make sense to require backyard swimming pool liability insurance since the adults would likely be the policyholder and the beneficiary.

As for regulations in general, I apply the same standard to guns as I do for swimming pools, cars, knives, drugs, and lead paint; Do the costs outweigh the benefits? For lead paint, the answer is obviously yes. For knives at home, the answer is obviously no. For concealed knives on airplanes, the answer is yes.

I think there's value in hunting and I think the costs are fairly low so I'd allow some shotguns and hunting rifles. I also think there's value in self-defense but the costs are much higher so I'd lean in favor of banning handguns. I think a shotgun or hunting rifle can provide most of the home or work invasion deterrence without all the accidental or criminal violence associated with handguns.

"I'd lean in favor of banning handguns. I think a shotgun or hunting rifle can provide most of the home or work invasion deterrence without all the accidental or criminal violence associated with handguns."

You "think" wrong. Shotgun pellets and most rifle rounds are more likely to go through criminals and/or walls of homes than are modern hollow-point hand-gun rounds (which are designed to stop in the body).

Accidental and criminal gun violence is rarely the result of bullets not stopping where they should. It's bullets exiting the gun in the first place. That's much more likely to occur with a handgun which is easier for children to shoot accidentally and easier for criminals to carry around.

You say that "a child in the US is 100 times more likely to die in a house with a swimming pool than in a house with a gun?"

I have just looked at some stats and, depending upon definitions 500-nearly 3000/year "kids and teens" were killed by guns in the last few years. I guess the high figure includes all the gang violence. The best detail I can quickly find is a little old (Boston Children's Hospital in 2003) stating 60 under 14 unintentional deaths by shooting and over 9,000 hospitalisations, i.e. lucky.
I think we might have heard of 6,000 child deaths a year by drowning. The CDC website says there were an average of 3,500 drownings a year across the US of all ages, about a fifth are under 14 so 700.
Please don't sppout rubbish to support your purile defense of the abomination of private gun ownership, where some actual facts can be found out in five minutes with a search engine. But then the gun lobby has never used data to underwrite its support of violence and mass murder.

Ecoute Sauvage, The debate about gun control is not just about how people are killed. People die in many different ways, both accidental and not. However, guns are in a league of their own.

When people use swimming pools, climb ladders, drive cars, drink
alcohol, or engage in many other activities they have reasonable expectations that no one will be killed or seriously injured. These items have safe and often very useful purposes, and are employed countless times every day without incident. Death or injury occurs due to negligence or improper use, and a host of laws, regulations, and policies have been created to limit their life-threatening potential. Whenever a gun is fired there is a significantly higher chance of death or injury. Guns don’t have other safe uses. They are designed for one purpose: to kill.

Some say they’re just a “tool” and it’s humans that kill. But as I’ve written elsewhere, you can kill someone with a baseball bat, but we don’t arm our military with baseball bats. They have guns because they’re easy to use, can kill at a long distance with minimal risk to the shooter, and they are extremely lethal. No other “tool” has that distinction. That’s why guns are the number one choice for mass murderers.

When swimming pools cease to be used safely for recreation, by millions of people every day, and are used only for self-defense or mass killings, then I’ll be first in line to demand that they be more strictly controlled or banned altogether. Until then it’s disingenuous to suggest that guns are no different. Thank You.

Homeowners insurance is already more expensive for people with backyard pools. Homeowners can reduce insurance costs with sensible measures that reduce the risk of those pools (gates, covers, etc.).

There is no reason firearms cannot be different. Gun owners would be evaluated for risk that the weapon would be used intentionally or unintentionally (e.g., after it was stolen) in a way that harms another. Weapons training, type of use, how it is stored (to reduce risk of theft) would all reduce the cost of insurance to an individual.

Aide from the fact that many of those alleged 9,000 deaths/year are CRIMINALS getting shot by other criminals, cops or armed civilians, can we get an insurance discount if we use our firearms to stop crimes?

According to the FBI, civilian use of firearms stops between 400,000 and 2 million crimes a year.

"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," 86 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86 (Fall 1995): 150-187.

You don't get a car insurance discount if you use your car to save someone's life. The idea is liability only insurance but if you want, we can implement your idea. I don't think you'd actually want it though. It would mean premiums go up to pay for the discount.

But we do get a discount if we send electricity back to the power grid. At least thats what all you watermelons (Green on the outside, Red on the inside) were telling us in order to get the government subsidies for solar continued (and so you could give our tax $ to Obama's Solyndra-esque donors.

If we are going to think about killing people and market economics, how about tax credits for shooting criminals, after all we are saving the cost of incarceration!

On the other hand, I don't want the government checking the notches on my rifle stock any more than I want them monitoring how much electric I use....

You get a discount on your electricity bill when you send electricity back up the grid because the power company is buying your electricity. A gun liability insurer wouldn't get anything for you using your gun in self-defense. Why would they pay you? We can get the government involved and either require insurers to pay you or have the government pay you. So which would you rather want? A government mandate requiring higher premiums to pay people who use their guns in self-defense, or higher taxes for the government to pay?

Les brings up an interesting question though and one which seems even to me rather callous and unfeeling but curious nonetheless.

If the premise of this article is that insurance will help offset the huge cost to society of gun ownership then one must consider the cost benefits as well. If statistically high numbers of gun deaths happen among or unto criminals (many of whom had already been released from prison for a first offense)then is there an actual cost benefit to society if an attempted robber, rapist, etc. dies at the hand of a law enforcement officer or a civilian? A quick internet search turned up this...

"Prisons cost taxpayers more than $32 billion a year. Every year that an inmate spends in prison costs $22,000. An individual sentenced to five years for a $300 theft costs the public more than $100,000. The cost of a life term averages $1.5 million.

States are spending more money on prisons than education. Over the course of the last 20 years, the amount of money spent on prisons was increased by 570% while that spent on elementary and secondary education was increased by only 33%. "

I am not claiming to have the right answer either statistically or morally but it does an another interesting dimension to the debate that I have see thus far...

There is strict gun control in India which is why the rape and overall crime rate is skyrocketing.

Perhaps if there had been some armed civilians in Mumbai when the jihadis attacked, the death toll might have been a lot lower.

Finally, the recent rapists in India were some low-life scum free lance bus drivers, but more importantly, if you had a daughter, which of the two women in the picture attached would you hope she emulates?

The problem I have with that picture is that males (and gun dealers) imagine the only time we women have any control is if we had a gun.

This is because males assume no other option. This is your lack of imagination. Speaking from direct experience, my own mother dispatched a male harassing me as a child with her wooden clogs. She is very short and the guy was taller than me. The sheer viscousness of the attack sent the guy running, tail between legs, as it were.

In college I had friends who armed themselves with a bats and whistles when the campus had problems assault on women. Myself personally I haven't had much problem with males assuming they could intimidate me, but I had a work colleague who had that problem point out why I don't have the same problem -- I am tall, athletic hence don't look like an easy target of intimidation. For home protection I prefer simple blunt instruments. At 1 to 2 meters I have all the advantage against (even) an armed assailant. I also won't hesitate to use it with full prejudice. I'll ask questions later.

Crime is a complicated affair, but one of the downside of industrialization is vast community disruption via migration, and the quick rise of wealth, and the chance to steal it.

"Perhaps if there had been some armed civilians in Mumbai when the jihadis attacked, the death toll might have been a lot lower."

Perhaps is conjecture. In the states there is little evidence it matters. In Afghanistan to Pakistan, both heavily armed societies, it has not stopped violence per se.

I believe that differential state studies of must and shall issue laws has revealed that the only statistically significant effect of said laws is an increase in aggravated assault rates. The decrease in the crime rate cannot be attributed to concealed carry.

a) india and china both have a sex ratio problem due to their preference for male offspring. young and unmarried men are the major source of violence in any society and these countries are experiencing the demographic and economic bulge similar to the states in the 60s.

b) Crime has been falling in the states overall. Statistics have not born out any one clear reason. And about the most likely seems to be removal of lead exposure, although an aging population helps.

Ah I see you concede my superior argumentation, because you have only stupid ad hominems to fall back on. I'd even give you brownie points if you had demonstrated imagination.

No worries though, I'll just keep the knowledge that my mom has larger gonadal diameter than you could ever hope to dream about. If you're lucky and learn some manners you might find a woman willing to protect you from bad people.

Just as citizens don't get to say whether other citizens are worthy of citizenship, I think blog commenters don't have the privilege of saying who should be allowed to comment on public blogs like this one. That said, I do get a little annoyed with single-issue folks who usually are not participants here until their favorite object of outrage comes up and then feel the need to argue with everything like they know who they are talking to. The benefit that regulars have is we know roughly who we are talking to.

Also, the whole point of gun registration is to be able to find the owner. I think we know who hands and feet belong to. If there's ever a point where we're allowed to own other people's hands and feet, I'll support registration.

And we can mandate general civil liability insurance but gun owners would still pay more because they're a higher risk.

Plus, we tend to recognize the regulars (even the ones that we routinely disagree with) as real people. Much more likely to have a civilized conversation with real people than with someone who merely appears to be the personification of outrage over his particular enthusiasm.

Yeah, a known fool and high-hat is still better than a "liberal" or a "Repuglican."

To your other comment, anybody who chooses to be a member of the Republican party gets to be one and gets to vote on what they think the party should stand for. There are no RINOs- only Republicans and other varieties of scoundrel. Lots of people have no party to represent them and those Les agrees with don't deserve representation any more than any other citizen. They should be thankful they've had it.

Actually, I'll add that I think nobody has a party that fully represents them. That's kind of the whole point of a democratic republican form of government. But if your big issue is a particularly expansive reading of the second amendment, you've had the whole GOP and a goodly chunk of the Democratic party representing you on that issue for 30 years. If you want to ban guns in private hands entirely, you've had somewhere near nobody in congress pushing your view for at least 20. I'm not sure that's the unaffected result of either the will of the people or the constitution.

If you are either a brain in a jar or a computer simulation, please notify Babbage immediately. Either one represents an enormous technological advance, which surely deserves coverage by the Economist.

P.S. Who is to say that a brain in a jar is not a real person? Sounds like he started as a real person, at least....

I do not have that honor, no. If I did I would use my magical alien space bat powers to change a couple of azeotropes and make my life easier, and would emphatically not help Hitler succeed in Operation Sealion.

I know I deviate from standard Republican positions on some issues. And I know I don't on other issues. So I don't mind being called a RINO or a Republican. Those titles are useful only insofar as they help others describe me and if it helps them, fine. I usually call myself a Republican because in the aggregate I think most people would consider that a fair description. But I have no sentimental attachment or disattachment to any such title.

It's a good idea (assuming there's a liability cap), that I think is unconstitutional.

In Heller, the Court explicitly declined to articulate any level of scrutiny for the Second Amendment. McDonald v. Chicago called it a fundamental right which would imply strict scrutiny but I have troubling seeing how any effective gun control measure would fail strict scrutiny, including a complete ban. So if strict scrutiny is proper, there will have to be more to it than simply a compelling government interest. Heller did say the right of law-abiding citizens to self-defense rises above all other interests. Mandatory insurance may or may not violate that right depending on how strictly the Court wants to apply it. Eugene Volokh thinks the Court might allow only gun control with a traditional basis, sidestepping the level of scrutiny debate. In that case, mandatory insurance would likely fail.

There's always the Roberts loophole. Just call it a tax. Though he can do some legal jujitsu to claim that it isn't a tax in this case.

I think there's a better case for it under the interstate commerce clause than most uses of the interstate commerce clause if the law were written to require any gun transported for sale across state lines to be contractually required to be insured by the retailer. Of course, that way it only affects the legitimate traffic.

All federal gun control rests on the idea that its production and sale is interstate commerce but you can't permit through one constitutional provision what is explicitly prohibited by another. E.g., you can't ban interstate speech.

In the absence of the 2nd Amendment, you'd be able to mandate insurance through the Commerce Clause.

ObamaCare was upheld on the grounds that it isn't prohibiting people from going without insurance. It's just taxing people who don't and somehow that's not a penalty for not having insurance. Doesn't make sense IMO but that's the law of the land now.
.
Applied to gun control, you don't have to get the insurance but you'd be taxed if you don't.

I'm not sure the second amendment actually infers that individuals have a right to keep guns in any specific place like in their homes, just that they have a right to keep and bear arms. What if we simply require gun owners to keep their arsenal in a community gun bank (CGB), similar to how people general keep their money in a bank or credit union instead of at home where it's at considerably higher risk of being stolen (and depreciating)? If we further limit gun use to the confines of historic use - hunting & skeet clubs, regulated militias, collector/trade groups - such that these guns are only used with ones peers, then we've ensured citizens keep and bear arms while getting them out of private homes. These CGBs could be co-located with the various gun groups and managed similar to credit unions with an elected board. Compliance would be left to the states.

I submitted such a proposal as a white house petition; it can be read & signed at http://wh.gov/QU9O . The site limits petitions to 800 characters so it's rather terse; the goal is simply to get people to consider something other than all or nothing solutions.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you have the right to bear arms to protect your home. It does, however, mention that the purpose of the second amendment is for the security of a free state, which would still be accomplished under J-G-W's proposal. That said, I think the Joint Chiefs are a bit more capable of that goal than your average gun-toting redneck and his friends.

"Banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” would fail constitutional muster." - DC v. Heller
.
I also think it's plain from the text of the Constitution. "Keep" means keep. If a library says I can keep a book but only at the library, that isn't really keeping.

This is the kind of pointless rabbit hole that I foolishly get myself sucked into. We could argue the semantics of "keep" or the infallibility of SCOTUS decisions, but it detracts from the larger point:

Why are we, as a nation, so desperately clinging to an antiquated idea that has long outlived its original purpose?

"How could you possibly know that the idea is either antiquated or has long outlived it's useful purpose?"

Consider the historical context of the law. U.S. citizens faced three major threats, all of which necessitating an armed populace: (1) foreign invasion, (2) a hostile native population, and (3) a new government that may have become (no one has perfect powers of prediction) as tyrannous as the one that so many had died to separate from. Further, the firearms of the age were cumbersome and (inaccurately) fired a single shot; mass murder was simply not a threat.

Now consider modern day America:

1) A foreign invasion hasn't happened since the War of 1812. Luckily, the U.S. spends more on defense than the next 25 countries combined, so the Joint Chiefs probably have that threat covered.

2) Our forefathers either killed or marginalized the native population. No longer a threat.

3) The U.S. government has over 200 years of experience in not being a totalitarian regime. For the past century or so, the might of the combined military branches has far overshadowed the ability of a band of citizens to overthrow it. Even if the U.S. were to descend into fascism, no amount of handheld weaponry could match its military might. Unless you're arguing for the legalization of personal nukes and armed drones, this line of reasoning is stupid.

All of the threats that the right to bear arms was supposed to mitigate are relics of history. And what replaced muskets? AR-15s. M4s. AK-47s. Concealable, semi-automatic handguns. Gun fetishists like Mr. Snyder and Les Legato cry home protection and safety, but having a gun in the come increases the probability of homicide by a factor of 2.7*. This is the opposite of mitigating a threat-- it's creating a threat.

What about then, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. True for some happiness is a warm gun, but the use of arms in self defense does have the consequence of extinguishing life, and puts a great many others in fear of their own person and that of their property, and puts them in a position of buying a weapon themselves in order to keep abreast of an arms race.

Surely people have the right to defend themselves, but guns seem to have been turned into a talisman. Little logic or reason applied. No thought is given to alternatives or questions asked whether some other means works out better.

1. Potential for infringement isn't infringement.
2. The happiness a hunter receives from using his gun might outweigh my discomfort. At some point the scale tips in the other direction. E.g., a guy with a bomb on an airplane. My general feeling is that there's sufficient public interest in allowing guns for law enforcement, hunting, and some limited home and workplace protection but not most other uses.

1) I suppose some could make an argument about effective infringement, but I'm not inclined to go that route.
2) I think hunters are hardly the problem. At least many of them prefer single bolt action rifles and don't care for large magazines. Since I have the habit of taking contrarian solutions, for many reasons, I think there are good reasons to 'go all Swiss' and declare a universal draft, maybe requiring everyone to keep a weapon at home in the same manner. Might clear some sinuses on the topic and it is my suspicion it would drastically change the national mindset about guns and voilence.

You have no constitutional right to keep and bear arms to protect your home.

You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms in order to belong to a citizen's militia. And if you look at real citizen's militias around the world (the Swiss, for example) their right to bear arms implies mandatory training, and strict laws about keeping the guns under lock and key.

The US also has bizarrely strongly enforced traditional rights to keep guns for self-defence. But that is your tradition, it is not written anywhere in your constitution.

Hm, so what of the portion of the 2nd that is so often an orphan in the war over regulating guns? Clearly the 2nd says well regulated militia are necessary to a free state, but where are they? I've never seen a local or state militia in my life. If we're to go all classical interpretation, aren't all states currently neglegent in their Constitutionally identified responsibility raising and maintaining well regulated militias? Why are none of us required to show up for target practice every Sunday lke archers in days of yore, march around a bit and patrol the borders as it were?

The U.S. government has spent the last 135 years becoming more and more of a totalitarian regime and a standing army is in itself justification for the populace to be armed and on guard.

The Department of Health and Human Services claims that you have no fundamental right to consume whatever food you choose. By extension, it claims to be able to regulate what food you eat, in this case, it claims to have the power to prevent you from selling raw milk to your next door neighbor.

Nothing in the Constitution even remotely confers any such power to the federal goverment. But, try to fight it. The burden is on you to prove that the government has no such power and the government will use your tax money to fight you in court.

That, my friend, is tyranny.

And the fact that we don't have tanks, fighters, etc does not make the fight impossible. Look at Syria and Libya, they managed and they did so with help from members of their own military.

"having a gun in the come increases the probability of homicide by a factor of 2.7*"

And crossing the street greatly increases the probability that you will get hit by a car.

We have a standing militiary. I don't think it being a statement of fact changes the situation. If it truely is necessary, like say air, you'd expect their absence to equate to a subjugated state, at least by the measure some posters are going on. :)

So you agree that all of age citizens should then be required by each and every state to show up for militia duty, to practice regularly, say every Sunday, war games etc. To reserve several days a week to patrol the streets and maintain order?

Interestingly, this statute defines me plainly as a member of the unorganized militia of the United States, thorny sex and age discrimination issues aside.

One could also argue that, while such units are "necessary to the security of a free state," they may not be 'sufficient' to achieve the internal security of a state. Neither, in fact, may be its police forces.

The state being composed foremost of its citizenry, its security must be judged by the welfare of those citizens. If I am assaulted and no police or organized militia are present to protect me, the internal security of the state is correspondingly diminished. The option if not the onus belongs to me as a citizen to restore it. The Second Amendment grants that I may maintain and employ weapons to achieve this end, and that this capacity cannot be infringed.

We readily extend the right to citizens to arbitrate their internal state security using arms when part of an organization, so it would seem odd to withhold that same right, and the tools used to exercise it, when individuals are separated from that organization for any reason: temporally, geographically, etc.

"and as Mr Wasik says, the private insurance market will likely do a very good job of discriminating between gun owners who pose different levels of risk."

But the kid who shot up that school in Newtown stole the guns from his mom, right? How would his mom, presumably someone with low risk of negligence, purchasing firearms insurance help prevent her son from stealing them?

Now I haven't seen any statistics on this, but I would imagine that a significant percentage of, if not most, cases of firearm negligence is committed with a gun that was obtained illegally; ie stolen or purchased on the black market. For example if you're going to rob a convenient store, it's common sense to use a gun that cannot be traced back to your name, right?

I think the mother of the Newtown shooter - single, in possession of very many guns, child with history of mental disorders - would have found it prohibitively expensive to insure her guns.

This is the point of the proposal in the article. We can't constitutionally take guns from people, but we can price the externalities of gun ownership via insurance, based on the risk that individual owners might pose.

Would insurance companies be allowed to discriminate against someone because said person is single, and because said person has a child with history of mental disorders? I think such discrimination may violate (I'm not a lawyer and I haven't looked at any specific laws) various anti-discrimination laws.

Insurance companies can discriminate all they want unless explicitly prohibited by law. But there's no way an insurer can find out if a policyholder's kid has a mental disorder. And I'm not even sure that would raise premiums. It might even lower them. 99.99% of children with mental disorders don't shoot people with their parents' firearms. It might less likely that they would. In the wake of Sandy Hook, everyone's thinking of how to stop the next one without considering the fact that the vast majority of gun deaths aren't mass shootings. Sandy Hook happens every month in NYC but the perps are 27 sane individuals.

Insurers could find out if someone else lives with the policyholder and could discriminate on that basis.

The health insurance market takes a wide variety of health and lifestyle factors into consideration when setting a price for insurance; smokers get higher rates because they are more likely to need expensive health care. I don't see how assessing premiums based on factors that increase the risk of harm as something that would qualify as discrimination. While we're on the topic, simply having children - mentally unstable or not - would probably trigger a much higher premium, as they are at risk of being involved in accidents with improperly stored guns.

Well smoking is a lifestyle choice, as is owning lots of guns. There aren't many laws that prohibit discrimination based on lifestyle choices such as these.
However, there are many laws that prohibit discrimination based on marriage status, kids, gender, race, etc.

Even if you were a lawyer, you wouldn't know. Nobody knows until a specific case in point gets ruled on by the Supreme Court. Until then, the most being a lawyer gets you is a slightly better informed guess -- but a guess nonetheless.

Eh, you'd be right if you assume that insurers will charge actuarially fair rates, RR. I thought that was generally the case once, but some of my policy studies in energy lead me to think otherwise.

Take nuclear power insurance. It's literally the largest fixed cost for a nuclear power operator. Even though the Federal government caps liability at $10bn, the insurance rates are so enormously out of proportion with the real occurrence of radiation releases and meltdowns that most operators can't afford to run a power plant of that type. Insurers have imposed an industry-wide "outrage" rate on nuclear power because of an irrational decision. (Ironically, the high insurance rates are often cited as proof nuclear power is not safe.)

My feeling is that mass shooting coverage would go the same way, with low actuarially fair rates but a very high "outrage" premium.

A potentially bankrupting but mostly undeterminable risk should result in higher premiums and that reflects real risk. A small risk of occurrence doesn't necessarily mean low risk when the frequency is unpredictable within a useful range and the potential loss is huge. If nuclear power plants weren't required to carry insurance, we'd consider them uninsurable.

That isn't the case with guns. The frequency of gun violence nationwide or even statewide is fairly predictable and the costs not exorbitant. In fact, we can probably look up the data to arrive at fair actuarial rates right now, something we, or at least I, wouldn't be able to do with nuclear power plants. That lack of predictability will be captured in higher premiums for nuclear power plants.

In fact I agree with you about most types of gun violence and whether or not you can determine the actuarially fair insurance rate.

What I referred to was specifically coverage against mass shooting events, which happen with comparably similar regularity to nuclear power plant accidents, considering the relative levels of exposure to risk.

I'm not going to go into specifics on nuclear power plant insurance, except that the way their insurance is treated is incredibly different from virtually every other high-risk process industry. Even the most remote plant has higher insurance rates than first-of-a-kind chemical plants that handle phosgene in densely built suburban neighborhoods in Texas. It's pretty ridiculous. I would say I'd stake my life on it, but then again I pretty much am: if Indian Point goes critical, I'm toast because I live less than 15 miles from ground zero.

What I also have to point out about nuclear power - sorry if I'm rambling - is that there's strong evidence of one of two things happening at the insurance companies. Since liability above $10bn (to put it in perspective, roughly two to three times the cost of a plant) is covered by the Federal government, for the insurance firms to consider their premiums actuarially fair they have to be systematically and seriously overestimating the probability of an adverse incident. I'm more inclined to believe that they are not intellectually incompetent, which leads me to believe that there is an "outrage" premium.

The vast majority of laws never reach the Supreme Court, or even a lower ranked appeals court, on appeal.

If a law states that firearm insurance discrimination based on marital status or whether a person has kids with mental disorders, then such a law is legal until repealed, which can be done either by legislation or by the Judicial branch.

People who commit mass murder are almost always law abiding citizens before their horrific actions. This forces citizens to acknowledge the cost their personal protection interests place on society. It is a way to force gunowners to pay for the externalities associated with the right they are exercising. Because some people feel the need to own assault rifles for what ever reason they are available to non-criminal people with cruel intentions as well. This will create a price barrier for preferred weapons of mass murderers and other random acts of violence higher. Since the pricing is driven by insurance companies teams of actuaries will constantly comb through data to determine which guns are more likely to be used by legal gun owners who commit crimes and raise premiums accordingly. The actions of criminals and their preference would probably be filtered and devalued because they are unlikely to be policy holders in the first place. This is a brilliant market based solution to a pervasive problem I don't feel sorry for anyone who owns an AR-15 legally paying more